Welcome to HVAC-Talk.com, a non-DIY site and the ultimate Source for HVAC Information & Knowledge Sharing for the industry professional! Here you can join over 150,000 HVAC Professionals & enthusiasts from around the world discussing all things related to HVAC/R. You are currently viewing as a NON-REGISTERED guest which gives you limited access to view discussions

To gain full access to our forums you must register; for a free account. As a registered Guest you will be able to:

Participate in over 40 different forums and search/browse from nearly 3 million posts.

You ignored the entire point. But I require your assistance and approval in my gun ownership as much as I require your assistance and approval in my free speech. I say what I want to say, I own what I want to own. Because I want to say it, or own it. Constitution 1 and 2. If you do not like those, maybe you should have them amended out of the Constitution.

Better yet, you should read court rulings that confirm 1 and 2 are not unlimited and that restriction/regulation of these rights does not conflict with the Constitution.

Your appalling lack of any sense of perception about scrogdog might be explained by your newbie status here but your ranting is pure lockstep Limbaugh with a healthy dose of foaming LaPierre.

When you hear of a heavy foot being used in a mass-shooting let us know. we would like to get pictures.

in the last 10 mass shooting since 2007,(since NObama has been in office) the "assault weapon" has been used four times. ALL by mentally deficient individuals.

of the 3.5 million modern sporting rifles in public your chances of being in a mass shooting are miniscule compared to being killed by your doctor, or drunk driver.

ALL mass shooting are done by deranged individuals, mostly using hand guns. Yet not one of you gun banners even mention banning hand guns. All you seem to think about is the four modern sporting rifles used by a mental case.

Your desire to ban the modern sporting rifle is skewed only because a deranged scumbag shot 21 children.

If Lanza had shot up a mall, would you still be willing to ban modern sporting rifles. From previous history, I think not.

Better yet, you should read court rulings that confirm 1 and 2 are not unlimited and that restriction/regulation of these rights does not conflict with the Constitution.

So you let some commie loving socialist judge appointed by either a left wing Democrat or a RINO Republican and approved by a majority of commie loving left wing Democratic Senators read and interpret the Constitution for you since you can't read it or understand the plain language in it yourself. Figures. The rest of us can read and don't need some Marxist to read and interpret the US Constitution for us. Thank you, thank you very much.

"I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."Sen. Barry Goldwater

If you do, why is it that Connecticut had a ban in place before SH took place and Lanza was still able to carry out what he did?

I believe that what you and other "anti-gunners" really want is a complete, across the board gun ban, aka "slippery slope"
How else are we really going to prevent the death of several school children? To do that you would have to remove every gun in America, shut down all gun manufacturing in the US, close all borders and ensure that our police and military weapons never fell into the hands of criminals. Do you really feel that way? If you were given your choice and you alone had the sole responsibility for any other children's lives in the future, could you live with that?

After all the rhetoric what remains is the core issue: Those that want to take away guns to suite their conscience or desire for supporting totalitatian regimes vs. the rule of logic and law that says you cannot and should not restrict or confiscate guns but rather enable their legal ownership then apply strict penalties for misapplication, just as with anything else in society. We are not serious about stopping DUIs because the penalties are too weak and the recidivism rates are high. We are not serious about stopping "repeat offenders" because we empower liberal judges who have created recidivism. We focus on controlling instruments misused to harm others rather than controlling the people intent on committing the harm because of the Progressive mindset and the ACLU, which has probably done more to destroy this country from within that any other non-governmental institution.

A rant worthy of the always foaming Wayne La Pierre.

I ask Scroggydoggy and all you who support some form of gun control to offer this before you open you mouth again with one breath about controlling guns: What have you done to identify the people who are most likely to commit violence against their fellow man? What have you done to facilitate the dissemination of this information? What mechanisms do you have in place to control these people who represent a direct threat to the public? What mechanisms do you have in place so that if one should slip through the cracks and act violently against the public, that they will be met with a deterrent or superior firepower such that they do not prevail in their scheme? What deterrents do you have in place so that any one, whether a kid in the street or a nut in his lair plotting mayhem will think twice about acting violently against the public because such cowards rarely will charge into the muzzles of guns?

What have you done to ensure these weapons do not fall into the hands of the people you mentioned?

You have not limited or controlled vehicles of any kind or seating capacity yet historically, their abuse while DUI has accounted for death tolls consistent with wars.

When a car is used in a mass-shooting let us know.

Why do you want to apply this faulty logic to the preservation of life and liberty?
Do you realize that bans on sodas, salt and trans fats can be reversed but gun control can and never will be reversed except through extreme bloodshed? This is not the place for social experimentation or to placate your personal fears and guilt about society and what you have done to contribute to its erosion and collapse. This is the time to stand firm against totalitarian fascists who seek to usurp power for the purposes of enslaving everyone for their benefit and your subjugation ONLY. This debate doesn't have one darn thing to do with saving the lives of kids or reducing mass shootings. Those are the tools of the fascists to hide their true agenda as I have laid out. So please spare us all the platitudes about how magazine capacity has anything at all to do with death tolls and everything to do with fascism. These weasels have been in hiding ever since McCarthy shone a light at them. They were successful at vilifying him when in fact, he was correct. We have been infiltrated by communists and their cousins the Progressives who share a common dream of a liberal fascist state of totalitarian control, otherwise known as slavery.